Curse

Tahlia Tane · Aug 07, 2009, 05:21 PM // 17:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fay Vert

No, I was replying directly to your point...

I was obviously saying that the combat was done right from a gameplay perspective. It's fun and awesome, that's all that matters. The only realism that is necessary is that the arrow flies in a curve.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fay Vert

It would also help if you bothered reading what I put before replying basically what I said

You also said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fay Vert

but basically it is probably more wrong than most other game implementations.

Which seems contradictory to me. GW does it right as as game but does it more wrong than most other game implementations? I'd like to know what those other games are. I'm pretty sure GW is the best game that does it right, purely from a gameplay perspective.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fay Vert

Then you haven't played ranger enough [...]

I've played ranger quite a bit, thank you very much. The problems you're describing would suggest a completely broken mechanic, and that's not the case. Things don't always work perfectly, so I don't see what the problem is. In fact, I've never heard anyone complain about ranger combat in-game. This forum just happens to be full of whiners. The only place I'd hear more squealing is on an animal farm.

Fay Vert · Aug 07, 2009, 05:48 PM // 17:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tahlia Tane

This forum just happens to be full of whiners. The only place I'd hear more squealing is on an animal farm.

Lest we descend to that level then, lets raise the civility levels.

I thought you were stating that the mechanics of bows were correct in GW. I was stating that the mechanics are wrong, more so than in other games. But I also acknowledge that for gameplay, GW works well, we agree on that.

Bow fire on bridges IS a broken mechanic, I am suprised that you never noticed that before, its certainly nothing new and has been well discussed for years. Its even often abused in PvP where there are a number of places where it is impossible for a ranger to shoot a player.

Dronte · Aug 07, 2009, 08:53 PM // 20:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fay Vert

Lest we descend to that level then, lets raise the civility levels.

I thought you were stating that the mechanics of bows were correct in GW. I was stating that the mechanics are wrong, more so than in other games. But I also acknowledge that for gameplay, GW works well, we agree on that.

Bow fire on bridges IS a broken mechanic, I am suprised that you never noticed that before, its certainly nothing new and has been well discussed for years. Its even often abused in PvP where there are a number of places where it is impossible for a ranger to shoot a player.

Its not impossible, you need good positioning to hit the target, usually under the bridge or something. Its still broken though.

HawkofStorms · Aug 07, 2009, 09:11 PM // 21:11

All MMOs have problems with pathing and field of vision. The glitches on bridges in GW is no worse then in many other MMOs when it comes to this regard.

Anyway, rangers are quite fun. The ONLY thing that could make them better is to have the ability to attack while moving (which a few MMOs have for archers, Warhammer Shadow Hunters and Squid Herders for instance). Although that would be tricky for the game's balancing.

moriz · Aug 07, 2009, 09:13 PM // 21:13

the mongolian chivalry in their prime could fire an arrow every second, while riding full gallop, and be able to hit a moving target consistently. how fast an archer can shoot depends on the bow and the skill of the archer himself. as such, the 2-2.7 seconds firing rate in GW is entirely possible and reasonable.

also, keep in mind that GW combat is first and foremost about balance. obviously, 1 shot kills shouldn't be allowed.

and btw, rangers CAN attack while moving. quarterstepping yeye.

Sarevok Thordin · Aug 07, 2009, 10:34 PM // 22:34

Rangers are fine except for their stances, so much anti-melee on a class that is stereotypically weak to them.

Escape being the worst, why do they call it escape when you can just STAND THERE AND ATTACK?

Fay Vert · Aug 07, 2009, 10:36 PM // 22:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by moriz

the mongolian chivalry in their prime could fire an arrow every second.

Source please?

Certainly the longbow had a max fire rate of about on in every five seconds but this was rarely used (too much effort and you run out of arrows). Probably more like once every 10 seconds was more realistic.

Ugh · Aug 07, 2009, 10:51 PM // 22:51

Why does every topic on GWG turn into an argument? T_T

OP:
"I like how ranged combat was implemented into this game. It would be cool if the AI was improved to take full advantage of the details that players do."

GWG:
*Bicker, whine, point out bugs, complain, argue*

Anyways...

I'm also a fan of ranger combat and improved AI would be awesome. It would also be nice if rangers/paragons would change positions in response to obstructions. Now they just hopelessly fire/throw/spit stuff at a wall. Any advancements for AI in GW2 are welcomed by me.

MisterB · Aug 07, 2009, 11:07 PM // 23:07

Seeking Arrows should make your arrows unblockable, unable to miss, and able to fly around, over, or under any obstacle and home in on your target at double velocity in my opinion. It would also solve that annoying "obstructed" bug on stairs and bridges. I think it would be a fun skill with no negative balance concerns because it ends if you fail to hit.

I enjoy playing my Ranger in Guild Wars. ANet did a fine job of implementing the class.

edit: First paragraph was sarcasm. Obvious contradiction is intentional. Just poking fun at the comparisons to reality in this thread by taking the name of a skill literally, and then making it absurd.

moriz · Aug 07, 2009, 11:23 PM // 23:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fay Vert

Source please?

Certainly the longbow had a max fire rate of about on in every five seconds but this was rarely used (too much effort and you run out of arrows). Probably more like once every 10 seconds was more realistic.

the Mongolians didn't use longbows.

http://www.coldsiberia.org/monbow.htm

according to this article, Mongolian archers could hit a target at 350 yards easily, whereas the English longbow has a max range of 250 yards. although it didn't mention as to how fast these archers could shoot, it isn't hard to imagine them using only a fraction of their bows' draw length to shoot rapidly in semi close quarters. their accuracy, range, and penetrating power likely went down the shitter, but you don't need those in the range where rapid shooting is required.

Grunntar · Aug 07, 2009, 11:24 PM // 23:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by MisterB

Seeking Arrows should make your arrows unblockable, unable to miss... a fun skill with no negative balance concerns because it ends if you fail to hit.

Umm, I kinda see a flaw in that logic... If your arrows are unblockable and unable to miss, how will you ever miss?

moriz · Aug 07, 2009, 11:27 PM // 23:27

meaning, the target won't be able to strafe it, or hide behind objects to force obstruction.

Fay Vert · Aug 07, 2009, 11:37 PM // 23:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by moriz

the Mongolians didn't use longbows.

Indeed, but I mention them for two reasons, one, they are in GW, and two, longbows are generally thoguht to have the advantage on rate of fire (GW says no).

The composites of the mongolians does indeed have the advantage of range (GW says no) reportedly even up to 500m! But I see no evidence for a shot a second, you just wouldn't have the strength for that, pull weights of over 150lbs are pretty demanding, let alone aiming the thing.

This is all a bit academic now as I don't think anyone is claiming that GW's implementation of bows is particularly realistic, but rather that it is playable feature.

Joiry · Aug 08, 2009, 12:00 AM // 00:00

Well, just from an aesthetics point of view, I can't stand the female ranger "gangsta" firing style. I agree ultra-realism in a game is bad, but not only do I think it looks silly, but its totally impractical. I've done archery for a few years, and shooting horizontal limits your draw length and doesn't allow you to aim using the string and arrow tip.

Mechanics tho are pretty good. I wouldn't necessarily agree with how each bow is implemented, but the fact different bows have different shooting mechanics is still neat.

Coney · Aug 08, 2009, 02:33 AM // 02:33

At least traps and nature rituals are now killer!!! <ducks>

Shadowspawn X · Aug 08, 2009, 03:55 AM // 03:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by moriz

Mongolian archers could hit a target at 350 yards easily, whereas the English longbow has a max range of 250 yards. although it didn't mention as to how fast these archers could shoot, it isn't hard to imagine them using only a fraction of their bows' draw length to shoot rapidly in semi close quarters. their accuracy, range, and penetrating power likely went down the shitter, but you don't need those in the range where rapid shooting is required.

Mongolian soldiers of the 11th century, where required to carry two separate bows, one for short range and one for long range. They also carried two quivers with a total of sixty arrows. The first quiver was full of regular arrows while the second consisted of utility arrows(armor penetrating, incendiary arrows,and whistling arrows for signaling).

Kharmin · Aug 08, 2009, 01:19 PM // 13:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coney

At least traps and nature rituals are now killer!!! <ducks>

Thanks. Made me spew my corn flakes all over the keyboard this morning.

Curseman · Aug 09, 2009, 04:10 AM // 04:10

I just wish that archery was a viable source of pressure damage.

Sarevok Thordin · Aug 09, 2009, 06:07 AM // 06:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curseman

I just wish that archery was a viable source of pressure damage.

If debilitating and interrupts don't put pressure on someone I dunno what does :/

wilebill · Aug 10, 2009, 09:15 PM // 21:15

Yes, the ranger combat is very well done in GW. /sign

Except I wish it had automatic switch to melee weapon when combat becomes point blank like my Hunter in WoW.

Other than that, which one I think is more fun is clear, because I am over here most of the time.